JUDGMENT : RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J. 1. The present second appeal has been filed by the appellants who were defendants No.1 and 2 before the learned trial Court against the judgment and decree dated 07-09-2015 passed by the learned 5 th Additional District Judge, Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.63A/2015 whereby the first appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed and judgment and decree dated 30-04-2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Civil Judge Class I to the Court of learned First Civil Judge Class I Bilaspur in Civil Suit No.91A/2015, has been affirmed. 2. On 18-04-2016 substantial question of law has been framed in the present second appeal which is as under:- “Whether the Will (Ex.-P/2) was proved according to Section 63 of Indian Succession Act?” 3. The parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status shown in the plaint before the learned trial Court. 4. The plaintiffs have filed the civil suit for declaration of their title over the suit property bearing Khasra No.85, 320/4, 370, 372/4, 375/6 area 0.06 acre, 2.50 acre, 3.35 acre, 0.40 acre and 01.10 acre respectively, total are 6.41 acre situated at village Khamhariya, P.H. No.34, Tah. Masturi, District Bilaspur. The defendants No.1 to 5 are the legal heirs of late Sahettar Lal and plaintiffs are sons of defendant No.5. Sahettar Lal has died on 01-01- 2007. The claim of the plaintiffs in civil suit was that their grand-father Sahettar Lal has executed the Will in their favour on 21-04-2006 with respect to the suit property. After death of Sahettar Lal defendants No.1 and 2 have got mutated their names in the revenue records of the suit land from the concerned Gram Panchayat on 02-03-2007. When the plaintiffs came to know about the mutation of names of the defendants in the revenue records of the suit land, they challenged their mutation order before the revenue courts and after dismissal of their revision by the C.G. Board of Revenue, Bilaspur on 19-03-2010, the present civil suit has been filed by them claiming that their grand-father Sahettar Lal has executed registered Will on 21-04- 2006 and they became the absolute owner of the suit land by virtue of the Will. 5. 5. The defendants No.1 and 2 have filed their written statement jointly, denying the adverse allegation made in the plaint and stated that late Sahettar Lal was head of the family till his lifetime and at age of 98 years, and due to his ill health, he died on 01-01-2007. After his death, the defendants No.1 to 5, be- ing the legal heirs of late Sahettar Lal, inherited the property and got their names mutated in revenue records in place of late Sahettar Lal and came into possession of the same. The defendants No.1 and 2 have specifically denied the execution of any will by late Sahettar Lal in favour of the plaintiffs. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that the defendants have filed a civil suit No.69A/2006 before the learned 9 th Civil Judge Class II Bilaspur for declaration and injunction in which the temporary injunction was also granted in favour of the defendants No.1 to 5 on 20-07-2006. In the written statement dated 05-07-2007 and 29-06-2006 filed by defendant No.5 Dharam Lal and his father Sahettar Lal have not disclosed about execution and registration of such deed. It has also been pleaded that on 19-12-2006, late Sahettar Lal has filed his affidavit in the form of examination-in-chief that civil suit No.69A/2006 in which also he disclosed that he is not going to execute any deed of transfer of the suit land in favour of any person. The mutation of the names of defendants No.1 to 5 have been done in accordance with mutation rules after due publication of the istehar and the revenue appeals and revisions filed by the plaintiffs have been dismissed upto the Board of Revenue. It has also been pleaded that the suit property was purchased by late Sahettar Lal from joint income of the family property and it was the joint family property of the family and no one alone can claim title over the suit land. 6. Defendant No.5 has also filed his written statement separately and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. 7. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:- 8. 6. Defendant No.5 has also filed his written statement separately and admitted the claim of the plaintiffs. 7. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues on the basis of pleadings of the parties:- 8. The learned trial Court after appreciation of the pleadings as well as the documentary evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment and decree dated 29-06-2013 holding that the suit property are self acquired property of late Sahettar Lal, and he validly executed the Will on 21-04-2006 in favour of the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs became the title holder of the suit property. The judgment and decree dated 29-06-2013 was challenged by the defendants No.1 and 2 before the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of learned First Additional District Judge Bilaspur in Civil Appeal No.22A/2014 which was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 12-11-2014 and after setting aside the judgment and decree dated 29-06-2013, the matter was remanded back to the learned trial Court for deciding the case afresh after providing proper opportunity of cross-examination of defendant No.5 to defendants No.1 and 2. 9. After remand of the case, the opportunity to cross-examine defendant No.5 was provided to defendants No.1 and 2 and after hearing the parties the learned trial Court has passed the judgment and decree dated 30-04-2015 and the suit of the plaintiffs has been decreed. The defendants No.1 and 2 again challenged the judgment and decree dated 30-04-2015 before the learned first appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.63A/2015 which was dismissed by the learned 5 th Additional District Judge Bilaspur vide its judgment and decree dated 07-09-2015 against which the present second appeal has been filed. In the present second appeal the substantial question of law has been formulated as has been disclosed in the earlier part of this judgment. 10. Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 would submit that both the courts below have grossly erred in holding that the plaintiffs are propounders and the will (Ex.-P/2) has been proved in accordance with law. 10. Mr. Ram Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants No.1 and 2 would submit that both the courts below have grossly erred in holding that the plaintiffs are propounders and the will (Ex.-P/2) has been proved in accordance with law. He would also submit that the will has not been proved in its requirement to prove as provided under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as the witnesses PW-2 Rajaram Yadav and PW-3 Bhav Singh have only stated that they are the witnesses to the will, however, they have not stated in their evidence that Sahettar Lal has executed the will in their presence, he signed the will in their presence and they have also signed in presence of Sahettar Lal. Therefore, there is lack of sufficient evidence to prove the will as the law required. He would rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam , (2003) 2 SCC 91 to buttress his submission. It is also submitted by him that the plaintiffs are required to justify all the suspicious circumstances with respect to execution of the will. The defendants No.1 and 2 were under apprehension that the defendant No.5 and his father Sahettar Lal in order to deprive them from the property, may alienate or enter into any transaction of the property and therefore, they had filed the civil suit before the learned 9 th Civil Judge Class II, Bilaspur in which the temporary injunction was also granted. In that civil suit the defendant No.5 or Sahettar Lal have not disclosed that Sahettar Lal has executed the will on 21-04-2006. When Sahettar Lal died on 01-01-2007 the said civil suit was disposed of. Therefore, there is suspicious circumstances that due to old age of Sahettar Lal and taking advantage of his illness, they have got executed the will which is under suspicious circumstances only to keep the defendants out of the property. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 12. None appears for the plaintiffs in the present appeal, though served. 13. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as the first appellate Court is liable to be set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5 supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 12. None appears for the plaintiffs in the present appeal, though served. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered his submissions made hereinabove and gone through the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 14. The question for consideration would be whether the execution of the Will dated 21-04-2006 (Ex.-P/2) has been proved and established by the plaintiffs in view of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act 1872. 15. It is trite law that a will as an instrument of testamentary disposition of property being a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator’s acquisitions during his lifetime, to be acted upon only on his/her demise, it is no longer res integra, that it carries with it an overwhelming element of sanctity. [See Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others, (2015) 8 SCC 615 ] 16. So far as the relevant statutory provisions to prove the execution of will, it would be appropriate to notice Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:- “ 63. Execution of unprivileged Wills.— Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:- (a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.” Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:- “ 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.— If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.” 17. The attestation of a will by two or more witnesses has been held to be mandatory as provided under Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The attestation of a will by two or more witnesses has been held to be mandatory as provided under Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. From the provision of Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 It is quite vivid that for due execution of a will (1) the testator should sign or affix his mark to the will; (2) the signature or the mark of the testator should be so placed that it should appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will; (3) the will should be attested by two or more witnesses; and (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the will and each of them should sign the will in the presence of the testator. 18. By the aforesaid provision, a document required by law to be attested to have its execution proved by at least one of the attesting witnesses if alive and it is subject to process of the court conducting the proceedings involved and is capable of giving evidence. However, proviso to Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is not available in case of will. 19. In the matter of Girja Datt Singh v. Gangotri Datt Singh , AIR 1955 SC 346 . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in order to prove the due attestation of will, the propounder of will has to prove that ‘A’ and ‘B’, the two witnesses saw the testator sign the will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the testator. Their Lordships while considering Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 further held that from the mere signature of two persons appearing at the foot of the endorsement of registration of will it cannot be presumed that they had appended their signature to the document as an attesting witness or can be construed to have done so in their capacity as attesting witness. It was pertinently observed as under:- “In order to prove the due attestation of the will Ex. A-36 Gangotri would have to prove that Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh saw the deceased sign the will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the deceased. It was pertinently observed as under:- “In order to prove the due attestation of the will Ex. A-36 Gangotri would have to prove that Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh saw the deceased sign the will and they themselves signed the same in the presence of the deceased. The evidence of Uma Dutt Singh and Badri Singh is not such as to carry conviction in the mind of the Court that they saw the deceased sign the will and each of them appended his signature to the will in the presence of the deceased. They have been demonstrated to be witnesses who had no regard for truth and were ready and willing to oblige Gur Charan Lal in transferring the venue of the execution and attestation of the documents Ex. A-23 and Ex. A-36 from Gonda to Tarabganj for reasons best known to themselves.” ***** “One could not presume from the mere signature of Mahadeo Pershad and Nageshur appearing at the foot of the endorsement of registration that they had appended their signatures to the document as attesting witnesses or can be construed to have done so in their capacity as attesting witnesses. Section 68, Indian Evidence Act requires an attesting witness to be called as a witness to prove the due execution and attestation of the will. This provision should have been complied with in order that Mahadeo Pershad and Nageshur be treated as attesting witnesses. This line of argument therefore cannot help Gangotri.” 20. In the matter of H. Venkatchala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and others , AIR 1959 SC 443 the Supreme Court speaking through Gajendragadkar, J., elaborately laid down the principles relating to the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a will. It was held as under:- “(1) Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty. (2) Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 63 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. (3) Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will. (4) Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. (5) It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator. (6) If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion, etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter.” 21. The principle laid down in the above-stated judgment has been followed with approval in Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt Amrit Kaur and others , (1977) 1 SCC 369 , Surendra Pal and others v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora and another, (1974) 2 SCC 600 , Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh and others , (2009) 4 SCC 780 and Jagdish Chandra Sharma (supra). 22. In the matter of Ramesh Verma (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another, (2017) 1 SCC 257 the Supreme Court has again reiterated the need of proving the attestation of will in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 23. 22. In the matter of Ramesh Verma (Dead) through Legal Representatives v. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by Legal Representatives and another, (2017) 1 SCC 257 the Supreme Court has again reiterated the need of proving the attestation of will in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 23. In Surendra Pal (supra), the Supreme Court while re-stating the guidelines regarding the nature and extent of burden of proof on the propounder of a will held that propounder has to show that the will was signed by the testator; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind; that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions; that he put his signature to the testament of his own free will; and that he has signed it in the presence of the two witnesses who attested it in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. It was further held that in cases where the propounder has himself taken a prominent part in execution of a will which confers on him substantial benefit that is itself one of the suspicious circumstances which he must remove by clear and satisfactory evidence. 24. The Supreme Court in Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi (supra) has clearly held that the attestation of will is not an empty formality. Highlighting the importance of attestation of Will it was held it means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attesting witness should put his signature on the will animo attestandi and it was held as under:- “13. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, a will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided therein and the propounder thereof should examine one attesting witness to prove the will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.” 25. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signature or affixing his mark to the will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator.” 25. In Janki Narayan Bhoir (supra), the Supreme Court while considering Section 63(c) of Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 held that mere proof of signature of the testator on the will was not sufficient, the attestation thereof is also to be proved as required by Section 63(c) of the Act Succession Act, 1925. It was observed as under:- “10. Section 68 of the Evidence Act speaks of as to now a document required by law to be attested can be proved. According to the said Section, a document required by law to be attested shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving an evidence. It flows from this Section that if there be an attesting witness alive capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court, has to be necessarily examined before the document required by law to be attested can be used in an evidence. On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a person propounding the will has got to prove that the will was duly and validly executed. That cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the will was that of the testator but must also prove that attestations were also made properly as required by Clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. It is true that Section 68 of Evidence Act not say that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. It is true that Section 68 of Evidence Act not say that both or all the attesting witnesses must be examined. But at least one attesting witness has to be called for proving due execution of the Will as envisaged in Section 63 although Section 63 of the Succession Act requires that a will has to be attested at least by two witnesses, Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that a document, which is required by law to be attested, shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been examined for the purpose of proving its due execution if such witness is alive and capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court. In a way, Section 68 gives a concession to those who want to prove and establish a will in a Court of law by examining at least one attesting witness even though will has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily under Section 63 of the Succession Act. But what is significant and to be noted is that that one attesting witness examined should be in a position to prove the execution of a will. To put in other words, if one attesting witness can prove execution of the will in terms of Clause (c) of Section 63, viz., attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of other attesting witness can be dispensed with. The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the attention of a will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove there was due execution of the will. If the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not, in his evidence, satisfy the requirements of attention of the will by other witness also it falls short of attestation of will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the will then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the will then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to prove the attestation of the will by the other witness there will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act.” 26. The principle of law laid down in Janki Narayan Bhoir (supra) has been followed with approval in Jagdish Chandra Sharma (supra) by which it was held as under:- “52. While dwelling on the respective prescripts of Section 63 of the Act and Sections 68 and 71 of Act 1872 vis-a-vis a document required by law to be compulsorily attested, it was held Janki Narayan Bhoir (supra) that if an attesting witness is alive and is capable of giving evidence and is subject to the process of the Court, he/she has to be necessarily examined before such document can be used in evidence. It was expounded that on a combined reading of Section 63 of the Act and Section 68 of the 1872 Act, it was apparent that mere proof of signature of the testator on the Will was not sufficient and that attestation thereof was also to be proved as required by Section 63 (c) of the Act. It was, however, emphasised that though Section 68 of the 1872 Act permits proof of a document compulsorily required to be attested by one attesting witness, he/she should be in a position to prove the execution thereof and if it is a Will, in terms of Section 63 (c) of the Act, viz., attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner as contemplated therein. It was exposited that if the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not prove the requirement of the attestation of the Will by the other witness, his testimony would fall short of attestation of the Will by at least two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the Will does not merely mean signing of it by the testator but connotes fulfilling the proof of all formalities required Under Section 63 of the Act. It was held that where the attesting witness examined to prove the Will Under Section 68 of 1872 Act fails to prove the due execution of the Will, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects.” 27. In Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage , 2002 AIR SCW 242 the Supreme Court has laid down that the propounder of the will has to establish the will in the manner contemplated by law and held as under: - “9. It is well-settled that one who propounds a Will must establish the competence of the testator to make the Will at the time when it was executed. The onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and execution of the Will in the manner contemplated by law. The contestant opposing the Will may bring material on record meeting such prima facie case in which event the onus would shift back on the propounder to satisfy the Court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the Will and in sound disposing capacity executed the same. The factors, such as the will being a natural one or being registered or executed in such circumstances and ambience, as would leave no room for suspicion, assume significance. If there is nothing unnatural about the transaction and the evidence adduced satisfies the requirement of proving a will, the court would not return a finding of 'not proved' merely on account of certain assumed suspicion or supposition. Who are the persons propounding and supporting a will as against the person disputing the will and the pleadings of the parties would be relevant and of significance.” 28. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments (supra) qua execution and attestation of will by a testator, the followng facts emerges on the face of record:- 1. Late Sahettar Lal was having three sons namely, Shyam Lal, Chandrahhan (defendants No.1 and 2) and Dharam Lal (defendant No.5), two daughters Savitri Bai and Devki Bai (defendants No.3 and 4). The plaintiffs are sons of defendant No.5 Dharam Lal. 2. Late Sahettar Lal was having three sons namely, Shyam Lal, Chandrahhan (defendants No.1 and 2) and Dharam Lal (defendant No.5), two daughters Savitri Bai and Devki Bai (defendants No.3 and 4). The plaintiffs are sons of defendant No.5 Dharam Lal. 2. The will deed Ex.-P/2 was executed and registered by late Sahettar Lal in the name of the plaintiffs on 21-04-2006 and PW- 2 Rajaram Yadav and PW-3 Bhav Singh were attesting witnesses. 3. Sahettar Lal has died on 01-01-2007. After death of Sahettar Lal the names of defendants No.1 to 5 were recorded in the revenue record on 02-03-2007 which was challenged by the plaintiffs before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur in revenue appeal which was dismissed on 18-02-2008 (Ex.-D/7). The revision before the Commissioner have also been dismissed vide order dated 23-04-2009 (Ex.-D/8) and their second revision has also been dismissed by the Board of Revenue C.G. vide order dated 19-03-2010 Ex.-D/9. 4. It has also come that a Civil Suit No.69A/2006 was filed by the defendant No.1 and 2 for permanent injunction in which on 05- 07-2006 the present defendant No.5 and late Sahettar Lal have filed their written statement in which they have not disclosed about execution of any will in favour of the present plaintiffs who are the sons of the present defendant No.5, whereas, the subject will is said to have been executed much prior to 05-07-2006, i.e., 21-04-2006. Even if it is presumed that Dharam Lal was not having knowledge of execution of any will, it is Sahettar Lal who was the testator of the said will must have disclosed in his written statement filed on 05-07-2006 if he intended to execute the will in its true sense, rather in para 15 of their written statement Ex.-D/1 they made specific averment that ^^okni= esa vfadr lwph&v dh Hkfwe dks izfroknh dz-&1 o 2 }kjk dksbZ vQjk&rQjh ugh fd;k tk jgk gS rFkk dksbZ nLrkost fodz; fu"ikfnr ugh fd;k gS vkSj u gh vkxs dksbZ vko’;drk gSA** The same is averment from the present defendant No.5 and late Sahettar Lal in the Civil Suit No.69A/2006 in the reply of the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC (Ex.-D/2). 29. 29. Considering apprehension that Sahettar Lal may execute any will or may alienate the suit property to anyone they raised their objection before the office of Sub-Registrar Bilaspur on 15-02-2006 which is Ex.-D/3. In that objection they have mentioned that the mental and physical condition of Sahettar Lal was not sound due to his age and since they are residing outside of the village for their service, the defendant No.5 in order to get undue advantage may get execute any deed from him with respect to the suit property. Vide order dated 20-07-2006 Ex.-D/4 the interim injunction was also granted in favour of the present defendant No.1 and 2. Even in the affidavit executed by Sahettar Lal under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC in the form of examination-in-chief filed on 19-12-2006 he has not disclosed that he already executed the will in favour of the present plaintiffs. On 27-01-2007 the application of Order 7 Rule 11 filed by the defendant of that case was registered and the application under Order 23 Rule 1(A) of the CPC filed by the plaintiffs of that case was allowed on the ground that Sahettar Lal has died untestated and after his death the only dispute between the parties remains for partition of the property for which the revenue courts are competent and they have withdrawn the said civil suit. Till that time, the defendant No.5 or Sahettar Lal had never disclosed about execution of any will in favour of the sons of present defendant No.5. 30. PW-2 Rajaram Yadav who is one of the attesting witness of the alleged will has stated in his evidence that the will has been executed in his presence and he signed the will as attesting witness. He nowhere stated in his evidence that Sahettar Lal has put his signature over the alleged will in his presence and they have also signed in the will in presence of Sahettar Lal. In cross-examination he admitted that at the time of execution of alleged will Sahettar Lal was not able to read anything and he was 98-99 years of age. He was very week and he could identify only after informing him about the person. He could not remember as to who signed the will first. He also admitted that the father of the plaintiffs namely Dharam Lal is having old property dispute with defendants No.1 and 2. He was very week and he could identify only after informing him about the person. He could not remember as to who signed the will first. He also admitted that the father of the plaintiffs namely Dharam Lal is having old property dispute with defendants No.1 and 2. He did not know as to whether Dharam Lal was intended to give partition of the property to his other brothers and sisters of not and he lastly admitted that for that reason he got executed the will in the name of his two sons. 31. PW-3 Bhav Singh, is another attesting witness and he too has not stated in his evidence that in presence of Sahettar Lal they signed the will as attesting witness and in their presence Sahettar Lal signed the will and saw him signing the will. He admitted in his cross-examination that Sahettar Lal put his thumb impression whenever and wherever he was asked to put his thumb impression. He too has admitted that there was old property dispute between Dharam Lal and the present defendants No.1 and 2. He did not recognize what has been written in the deed. 32. Another point involved in the case is that the alleged will is a registered will and PW-5 who is document writer has proved the will as scribe. He stated that he only scribed the will and he did not know who are the attesting witnesses and when they have signed the will. The witnesses have not signed the will in his presence. 33. PW-4 is the record keeper of the Registrar Office Bilaspur. He has admitted that on 15-02-2006 the defendant Shyam Lal has made objection against registration of any deed by Sahettar Lal. Though he stated that only by making an objection they could not stop registration of the deed, but the fact remains that before registration of the will deed the defendant No.1 has raised objection before the registration which further corroborates by the document Ex.-D/3. Even otherwise, the registration of the will does not absolve the propounder from its burden to prove. 34. In the matter of Dhani Ram (Died) through LRs. & others Vs. Shiv Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 21 that:- “ 21. Even otherwise, the registration of the will does not absolve the propounder from its burden to prove. 34. In the matter of Dhani Ram (Died) through LRs. & others Vs. Shiv Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1263, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 21 that:- “ 21. it is well settled that mere registration would not sanctify a document by attaching to it an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness. The observations of this Court in Rani Purnima Debi and another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another , AIR 1962 SC 567 : [1962] 3 SCR 195, which were referred to by the Himachal Pradesh High Court, are of guidance in this regard and are worthy of extraction. These observations read as under: "There is no doubt that if a Will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a Will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a Will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the Will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the Will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a Will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the Will) that the testator knew that it was a Will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the Will was registered would not be of much value. It is not unknown that registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. It is not unknown that registration may take place without the executant really knowing what he was registering. Law reports are full of cases in which registered Wills have not been acted upon …… Therefore, the mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a Will; though the fact that there has been registration would be an important circumstance in favour of the Will being genuine if the evidence as to registration establishes that the testator admitted the execution of the Will after knowing that it was a Will the execution of which he was admitting.” 35. Recently, in the case of Leela and Others Vs. Muruganantham and Others , 2025 (4) SCC 289 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that mere registration of the Will would not attach to it a stamp of validity, and it must still be proved as required by the law. In para 22, it has been held that:- “ 22. There can be no doubt with respect to the manner in which execution of a will is to be proved. In the light of plethora of decisions including the decisions in Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad and in Derek A.C. Lobo case this position is well settled that mere registration of a will would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It is not the case of the appellant that the will dated 6-4-1990 is a registered one.” 36. In the light of the above facts, it is quite vivid that compliance of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is absolutely missing in the present case though strict compliance of the said provision is imperative. The plaintiffs being propounders of the will must have prove that the testator has signed the will in presence of the attesting witnesses and in their presence they have signed the will. The plaintiffs being propounders of the will must have prove that the testator has signed the will in presence of the attesting witnesses and in their presence they have signed the will. Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 clearly lays down the requirement of valid and enforceable will that it shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of them has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the will and each of the witnesses has signed the will in presence of the testator as held by the Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar (supra) that a will has to be proved like any other document except that evidence tendered in proof of will should additionally satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 apart from under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872. 37. Analysing the facts of the present case, it would appear that plaintiffs/propounders of the will, have failed to prove the attestation of will in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872. Both the attesting witnesses Rajaram Yadav (PW-2) and Bhav Singh (PW-3) have been examined before the trial Court, but they did not state that they have signed the will in presence of the testator and they have seen the testator signing the will. Mere signing of a will as a witness would not per se amount to compliance of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 as animo attestandi is absolutely lacking. 38. Additionally, one of the suspicious circumstances which plaintiffs have failed to dispel is that the testator has executed the will on 21-04-2006 and he died on 01-01-2007. In the earlier suit wherein permanent injunction application filed by the defendants No.1 and 2, father of the plaintiffs Dharam Lal and testator Sahettar Lal have filed their written statement on 05-07-2006 (Ex.-D/1) and reply of interim application Ex.-D/2 on 29-06-2006 and Sahettar Lal has filed his affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC on 19-12-2006 (Ex.-D/5), however, in none of these documents they have disclosed about execution of any will in favour of the plaintiffs on 21-04-2006 which was totally unnatural conduct on the part of the defendant No.5 as well as testator Sahettar Lal which shows suspicion on the said will. 39. 39. Consequently, this Court is fully satisfied that execution and attestation of will is not found established in accordance with law and plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden placed upon them by law to prove attestation of the will without any coercion or sound state of mind. 40. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court are set aside. The appeal is allowed and the suit of the plaintiffs are dismissed. Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered in favour of defendants No.1 and 2 and against the plaintiffs. 41. The parties shall bear their own cost(s). 42. The appellate decree be drawn accordingly.